Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!seismo!rutgers!sri-unix!sri-spam!mordor!lll-tis!ptsfa!ihnp4!cuae2!ltuxa!ttrdc!levy
From: levy@ttrdc.UUCP (Daniel R. Levy)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c,comp.lang.lisp
Subject: Re: lisp (was: Compatibility with EBCDIC)
Message-ID: <1880@ttrdc.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 26-Aug-87 13:48:11 EDT
Article-I.D.: ttrdc.1880
Posted: Wed Aug 26 13:48:11 1987
Date-Received: Sat, 29-Aug-87 03:42:40 EDT
References: <855@tjalk.cs.vu.nl> <2683@hoptoad.uucp>, <1519@sol.ARPA> <8452@utzoo.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T, Skokie, IL
Lines: 16
Xref: mnetor comp.lang.c:3939 comp.lang.lisp:415

In article <8452@utzoo.UUCP>, henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) writes:
> > Remember, very few people have to distort Lisp to put it on a new
> > architecture.
> Yeah, because they're distorting it to suit their own ideas already -- name
> three Lisp implementations that accept *exactly* the same language! :-)

I'm not sure what sense this makes.  Are there even three C or three FORTRAN
implementations which accept *exactly* the same language?????  Are lisps
REALLY so diverse (disclaimer: I known nothing about lisp except that it 
is written using Lots of Insipid Silly Parentheses :-) )  that they don't
even accept a mutual subset of the language?
-- 
|------------Dan Levy------------|  Path: ..!{akgua,homxb,ihnp4,ltuxa,mvuxa,
|         an Engihacker @        |		vax135}!ttrdc!ttrda!levy
| AT&T Computer Systems Division |  Disclaimer:  i am not a Yvel Nad
|--------Skokie, Illinois--------|